Kirola et al v. City & County of San Francisco, The et al
STIPULATION AND ORDER: That Plaintiffs produce revised privilege log in compliance with Rule 26 by 04/21/10; Joint Letter Brief due by 04/28/10, re 252 Stipulation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen, on 4/19/10. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2010) Modified on 4/20/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Guy B. Wallace, State Bar No. 176151 Mark T. Johnson, State Bar No. 76904 Andrew P. Lee, State Bar No. 245903 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com James C. Sturdevant, State Bar No. 94551 Monique Olivier, State Bar No. 190385 Whitney B. Huston, State Bar No. 234863 THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 477-2410 Facsimile: (415) 477-2420 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION IVANA KIROLA, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ("the CITY"), et al.; Defendants. No. 4:07-CV-03685 SBA (EMC) CLASS ACTION STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S PRODUCTION OF A PRIVILEGE LOG TRIAL DATE: JULY 12, 2010
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PRIVILEGE LOG ET AL. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., CASE NO. 4:07-CV-03685 SBA (EMC)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
STIPULATION WHEREAS, this Court entered an Order on April 2, 2010 (Document No. 225) requiring that the City and County of San Francisco (the City) produce a privilege log on or before April 9, 2010 and setting a deadline of April 16, 2010 within which the parties were submit a joint letter brief regarding any disputes concerning the privilege log; WHEREAS, the City produced a privilege log on April 9, 2010; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs believe that the City's privilege log is insufficient in a number of respects and, on April 12, 2010, wrote to the City's counsel to describe those deficiencies and invite the City to meet and confer about the matter before submitting a joint letter brief to the Court for resolution of the matter; WHEREAS, the City responded on April 13, 2010 by offering to produce a revised and
12 updated privilege log to address Plaintiffs' concerns and requested additional time until April 21 to 13 do so; and 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
KIROLA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PRIVILEGE LOG ET AL. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., CASE NO. 4:07-CV-03685 SBA (EMC) 1
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are in agreement with the City's proposal; THEREFORE, the parties hereby STIPULATE, subject to approval by the Court, that Plaintiffs may have until Wednesday, April 21, 2010 within which to produce a revised privilege log compliant with Rule 26 and applicable judicial authorities. If there is a dispute about the privilege log, then the parties must file a joint letter brief no later than April 28, 2010. IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
Dated: April 14, 2010
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP /s/ MARK T. JOHNSON Counsel for Plaintiffs
1 Dated: April 14, 2010 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19 10 Dated: April ____, 2010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY /s/ DANNY CHOU JIM EMERY ELAINE O'NEIL Counsel for Defendant City and County of San Francisco
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S DISTRICT TE C TA
D IS T IC T R
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PRIVILEGE LOG ET AL. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., CASE NO. 4:07-CV-03685 SBA (EMC) 2
___________________________________________ HON. EDWARD M. CHEN United States MagistratedJudgeM. Chen ward Judge E
O OR IT IS S
RT U O
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?